The Internet of Things: Why now and how big?

The Internet of Things: Why now and how big?

Now that it has been established that the Internet of Things is the most hyped “emerging technology” today, and that the term—and the associated technologies—is far from being new, the only question to be answered is Why the sudden surge in interest in 2014?

That’s the question I put to a number of tech luminaries earlier this year. Bob Metcalfe, inventor of the Ethernet and now Professor of Innovation at University of Texas at Austin, is familiar with the sudden prominence of technologies, coming after lengthy incubation periods. Metcalfe points to scribbles like me as the main culprit: “It’s a media phenomenon. Technologies and standards and products and markets emerge slowly, but then suddenly, chaotically, the media latches on and BOOM!—It’s the year of IoT.” Hal Varian, Chief Economist at Google, believes Moore’s Law has something to do with the newfound interest in the IoT: “The price of sensors, processors, and networking has come way down.  Since WiFi is now widely deployed, it is relatively easy to add new networked devices to the home and office.”

Janus Bryzek, known as “the father of sensors” (and a VP at Fairchild Semiconductor), thinks there are multiple factors “accelerating the surge” in interest. First, there is the new version of the Internet Protocol, IPv6, “enabling almost unlimited number of devices connected to networks.” Another factor is that four major network providers—Cisco, IBM, GE and Amazon—have decided “to support IoT with network modification, adding Fog layer and planning to add Swarm layer, facilitating dramatic simplification and cost reduction for network connectivity.” Last but not least, Bryzek mentions new forecasts regarding the IoT opportunity, with GE estimating that the “Industrial Internet” has the potential to add $10 to $15 trillion (with a “T”) to global GDP over the next 20 years, and Cisco  increasing to $19 trillion its forecast for the economic value created by the “Internet of Everything” in the year 2020.  “This is the largest growth in the history of humans,” says Bryzek.

These mind-blowing estimates from companies developing and selling IoT-related products and services, no doubt have helped fuel the media frenzy. But what do the professional prognosticators say? Gartner estimates that IoT product and service suppliers will generate incremental revenue exceeding $300 billion in 2020. IDC forecasts that the worldwide market for IoT solutions will grow from $1.9 trillion in 2013 to $7.1 trillion in 2020.

Other research firms focus on slices of this potentially trillion-dollar market such as connected cars, smart homes, and wearables. Here’s a roundup of estimates and forecasts for various segments of the IoT market:

ABI Research:  The installed base of active wireless connected devices will exceed 16 billion in 2014, about 20% more than in 2013. The number of devices will more than double from the current level, with 40.9 billion forecasted for 2020. 75% of the growth between today and the end of the decade will come from non-hub devices: sensor nodes and accessories. The chart above is from ABI’s research on smart cars.

Acquity Group (Accenture Interactive): More than two thirds of consumers plan to buy connected technology for their homes by 2019, and nearly half say the same for wearable technology. Smart thermostats are expected to have 43% adoption in the next five years (see chart below).

IoT_Accenture_Adaptation Graph

IHS Automotive: The number of cars connected to the Internet worldwide will grow more than sixfold to 152 million in 2020 from 23 million in 2013.

Navigant Research: The worldwide installed base of smart meters will grow from 313 million in 2013 to nearly 1.1 billion in 2022.

Morgan Stanley: Driverless cars will generate $1.3 trillion in annual savings in the United States, with over $5.6 trillions of savings worldwide.

Machina Research: Consumer Electronics M2M connections will top 7 billion in 2023, generating $700 billion in annual revenue.

On World: By 2020, there will be over 100 million Internet connected wireless light bulbs and lamps worldwide up from 2.4 million in 2013.

Juniper Research: The wearables market will exceed $1.5 billion in 2014, double its value in 2013–

Endeavour Partners: As of September 2013, one in ten U.S. consumers over the age of 18 owns a modern activity tracker. More than half of U.S. consumers who have owned a modern activity tracker no longer use it. A third of U.S. consumers who have owned one stopped using the device within six months of receiving it.

Originally published on Forbes.com

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

Josh Wills on Machine Learning in a Business Setting

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgfRdDjLxe0?rel=0]
Academic machine learning is all about optimization. Machine learning in a business setting is all about understanding: “My focus is always on how do I understand what the system is doing, come up with new hypotheses about this very complex system, test them, and then use what I’ve learned from those tests to find new ways to improve the system.”

An overview of Cloudera’s current data science tools, including Oryx and Spark for building and serving machine learning models, Gertrude for multivariate testing, and Impala for ludicrously high-performance SQL queries against HDFS.

Josh Wills is Cloudera’s Senior Director of Data Science

Posted in Data Science, Machine Learning | Leave a comment

What Happens on the Web in 60 Seconds (Infographic)

What Happens on the Web in 60 Seconds (Infographic)

Source: Qmee

Posted in Infographics, Statistics | Leave a comment

What is the Internet of Things? (Infographic)

What is the Internet of Things? (Infographic)
Posted in Infographics, Internet of Things | Leave a comment

The Landscape of the Internet of Things

ENCHANTED OBJECTS

Source: Entrepreneur and Media Lab researcher David Rose talks ‘enchanted objects’

The book on Amazon: Enchanted Objects: Design, Human Desire, and the Internet of Things

Posted in Internet of Things | Leave a comment

A Very Short History Of The Internet Of Things

There have been visions of smart, communicating objects even before the global computer network was launched forty-five years ago. As the Internet has grown to link all signs of intelligence (i.e., software) around the world, a number of other terms associated with the idea and practice of connecting everything to everything have made their appearance, including machine-to-machine (M2M), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), context-aware computing, wearables, ubiquitous computing, and the Web of Things. Here are a few milestones in the evolution of the mashing of the physical with the digital.

1932                                    Jay B. Nash writes in Spectatoritis: “Within our grasp is the leisure of the Greek citizen, made possible by our mechanical slaves, which far outnumber his twelve to fifteen per free man… As we step into a room, at the touch of a button a dozen light our way. Another slave sits twenty-four hours a day at our thermostat, regulating the heat of our home. Another sits night and day at our automatic refrigerator. They start our car; run our motors; shine our shoes; and cult our hair. They practically eliminate time and space by their very fleetness.”

January 13, 1946              The 2-Way Wrist Radio, worn as a wristwatch by Dick Tracy and members of the police force, makes its first appearance and becomes one of the comic strip’s most recognizable icons.

1949                                    The bar code is conceived when 27 year-old Norman Joseph Woodland draws four lines in the sand on a Miami beach. Woodland, who later became an IBM engineer, received (with Bernard Silver) the first patent for a linear bar code in 1952. More than twenty years later, another IBMer, George Laurer, was one of those primarily responsible for refining the idea for use by supermarkets.

1955                                    Edward O. Thorp conceives of the first wearable computer, a cigarette pack-sized analog device, used for the sole purpose of predicting roulette wheels. Developed further with the help of Claude Shannon, it was tested in Las Vegas in the summer of 1961, but its existence was revealed only in 1966.

October 4, 1960               Morton Heilig receives a patent for the first-ever head-mounted display.

1967                                    Hubert Upton invents an analog wearable computer with eyeglass-mounted display to aid in lip reading.

October 29, 1969             The first message is sent over the ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet.

January 23, 1973              Mario Cardullo receives the first patent for a passive, read-write RFID tag.

June 26, 1974                    A Universal Product Code (UPC) label is used to ring up purchases at a supermarket for the first time.

1977                                    CC Collins develops an aid to the blind, a five-pound wearable with a head-mounted camera that converted images into a tactile grid on a vest.

Early 1980s                        Members of the Carnegie-Mellon Computer Science department install micro-switches in the Coke vending machine and connect them to the PDP-10 departmental computer so they could see on their computer terminals how many bottles were present in the machine and whether they were cold or not.

1981                                    While still in high school, Steve Mann develops a backpack-mounted “wearable personal computer-imaging system and lighting kit.”

1990                                    Olivetti develops an active badge system, using infrared signals to communicate a person’s location.

September 1991              Xerox PARC’s Mark Weiser publishes “The Computer in the 21st Century” in Scientific American, using the terms “ubiquitous computing” and “embodied virtuality” to describe his vision of how “specialized elements of hardware and software, connected by wires, radio waves and infrared, will be so ubiquitous that no one will notice their presence.”

1993                                    MIT’s Thad Starner starts using a specially-rigged computer and heads-up display as a wearable.

1993                                    Columbia University’s Steven Feiner, Blair MacIntyre, and Dorée Seligmann develop KARMA–Knowledge-based Augmented Reality for Maintenance Assistance. KARMA overlaid wireframe schematics and maintenance instructions on top of whatever was being repaired.

1994                                    Xerox EuroPARC’s Mik Lamming and Mike Flynn demonstrate the Forget-Me-Not, a wearable device that communicates via wireless transmitters and records interactions with people and devices, storing the information in a database.

1994                                    Steve Mann develops a wearable wireless webcam, considered the first example of lifelogging.

September 1994              The term ‘context-aware’ is first used by B.N. Schilit and M.M. Theimer in “Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts,” Network, Vol. 8, Issue 5.

1995                                    Siemens sets up a dedicated department inside its mobile phones business unit to develop and launch a GSM data module called “M1” for machine-to-machine (M2M) industrial applications, enabling machines to communicate over wireless networks. The first M1 module was used for point of sale (POS) terminals, in vehicle telematics, remote monitoring and tracking and tracing applications.

December 1995                MIT’s Nicholas Negroponte and Neil Gershenfeld write in “Wearable Computing” in Wired: “For hardware and software to comfortably follow you around, they must merge into softwear… The difference in time between loony ideas and shipped products is shrinking so fast that it’s now, oh, about a week.”

October 13-14, 1997       Carnegie-Mellon, MIT, and Georgia Tech co-host the first IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, in Cambridge, MA.

1999                                    The Auto-ID (for Automatic Identification) Center is established at MIT. Sanjay Sarma, David Brock and Kevin Ashton turned RFID into a networking technology by linking objects to the Internet through the RFID tag.

1999                                    Neil Gershenfeld writes in When Things Start to Think: “Beyond seeking to make computers ubiquitous, we should try to make them unobtrusive…. For all the coverage of the growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web, a far bigger change is coming as the number of things using the Net dwarf the number of people. The real promise of connecting computers is to free people, by embedding the means to solve problems in the things around us.”

January 1, 2001                David Brock, co-director of MIT’s Auto-ID Center, writes in a white paper titled “The Electronic Product Code (EPC): A Naming Scheme for Physical Objects”: “For over twenty-?ve years, the Universal Product Code (UPC or ‘bar code’) has helped streamline retail checkout and inventory processes… To take advantage of [the Internet’s] infrastructure, we propose a new object identi?cation scheme, the Electronic Product Code (EPC), which uniquely identi?es objects and facilitates tracking throughout the product life cycle.”

March 18, 2002                Chana Schoenberger and Bruce Upbin publish “The Internet of Things” in Forbes. They quote Kevin Ashton of MIT’s Auto-ID Center: “We need an internet for things, a standardized way for computers to understand the real world.”

April 2002                          Jim Waldo writes in “Virtual Organizations, Pervasive Computing, and an Infrastructure for Networking at the Edge,” in the Journal of Information Systems Frontiers: “…the Internet is becoming the communication fabric for devices to talk to services, which in turn talk to other services. Humans are quickly becoming a minority on the Internet, and the majority stakeholders are computational entities that are interacting with other computational entities without human intervention.”

June 2002                          Glover Ferguson, chief scientist for Accenture, writes in “Have Your Objects Call My Objects” in the Harvard Business Review: “It’s no exaggeration to say that a tiny tag may one day transform your own business. And that day may not be very far off.”

January 2003                    Bernard Traversat et al. publish “Project JXTA-C: Enabling a Web of Things” in HICSS ’03 Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. They write: “The open-source Project JXTA was initiated a year ago to specify a standard set of protocols for ad hoc, pervasive, peer-to-peer computing as a foundation of the upcoming Web of Things.”

October 2003                    Sean Dodson writes in the Guardian: ”Last month, a controversial network to connect many of the millions of tags that are already in the world (and the billions more on their way) was launched at the McCormick Place conference centre on the banks of Lake Michigan. Roughly 1,000 delegates from across the worlds of retail, technology and academia gathered for the launch of the electronic product code (EPC) network. Their aim was to replace the global barcode with a universal system that can provide a unique number for every object in the world. Some have already started calling this network ‘the internet of things’.”

August 2004                      Science-fiction writer Bruce Sterling introduces the concept of “Spime” at SIGGRAPH, describing it as “a neologism for an imaginary object that is still speculative. A Spime also has a kind of person who makes it and uses it, and that kind of person is somebody called a ‘Wrangler.’ … The most important thing to know about Spimes is that they are precisely located in space and time. They have histories. They are recorded, tracked, inventoried, and always associated with a story…  In the future, an object’s life begins on a graphics screen. It is born digital. Its design specs accompany it throughout its life. It is inseparable from that original digital blueprint, which rules the material world. This object is going to tell you – if you ask – everything that an expert would tell you about it. Because it WANTS you to become an expert.”

September 2004              G. Lawton writes in “Machine-to-machine technology gears up for growth” in Computer: “There are many more machines—defined as things with mechanical, electrical, or electronic properties­—in the world than people. And a growing number of machines are networked… M2M is based on the idea that a machine has more value when it is networked and that the network becomes more valuable as more machines are connected.”

October 2004                    Neil Gershenfeld, Raffi Krikorian and Danny Cohen write in “The Internet of Things” in Scientific American: “Giving everyday objects the ability to connect to a data network would have a range of benefits: making it easier for homeowners to configure their lights and switches, reducing the cost and complexity of building construction, assisting with home health care. Many alternative standards currently compete to do just that—a situation reminiscent of the early days of the Internet, when computers and networks came in multiple incompatible types.”

October 25, 2004             Robert Weisman writes in the Boston Globe: “The ultimate vision, hatched in university laboratories at MIT and Berkeley in the 1990s, is an ‘Internet of things’ linking tens of thousands of sensor mesh networks. They’ll monitor the cargo in shipping containers, the air ducts in hotels, the fish in refrigerated trucks, and the lighting and heating in homes and industrial plants. But the nascent sensor industry faces a number of obstacles, including the need for a networking standard that can encompass its diverse applications, competition from other wireless standards, security jitters over the transmitting of corporate data, and some of the same privacy concerns that have dogged other emerging technologies.”

2005                                    A team of faculty members at the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea (IDII) in Ivrea, Italy, develops Arduino, a cheap and easy-to-use single-board microcontroller, for their students to use in developing interactive projects. Adrian McEwen and Hakim Cassamally in Designing the Internet of Things: “Combined with an extension of the wiring software environment, it made a huge impact on the world of physical computing.”

November 2005               The International Telecommunications Union publishes the 7th in its series of reports on the Internet, titled “The Internet of Things.”

June 22, 2009                    Kevin Ashton writes in “That ‘Internet of Things’ Thing” in RFID Journal: “I could be wrong, but I’m fairly sure the phrase ‘Internet of Things’ started life as the title of a presentation I made at Procter & Gamble (P&G) in 1999. Linking the new idea of RFID in P&G’s supply chain to the then-red-hot topic of the Internet was more than just a good way to get executive attention. It summed up an important insight—one that 10 years later, after the Internet of Things has become the title of everything from an article in Scientific American to the name of a European Union conference, is still often misunderstood.”

Thanks to Sanjay Sarma and Neil Gershenfeld for their comments on a draft of this timeline.

[Originally posted on Forbes.com]

Posted in Internet of Things | Leave a comment

Neil Gershenfeld on Turning Data into Things and Things into Data (Video)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0RDrSKenGo]

Neil Gershenfeld, Director of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, at the 2014 Solid Conference: Analog telephone calls degraded with distance; digitizing communications allowed errors to be detected and corrected, leading to the Internet. Analog computations degraded with time; digitizing computing again allowed errors to be detected and corrected, leading to microprocessors and PCs. Manufacturing today remains analog; although the designs are digital, the processes are not. Neil Gershenfeld presents emerging research on digitizing fabrication by coding the construction of functional materials, and explores its implications for programming the physical world.

Gershenfeld wrote in his 1999 book, When Things Start to Think: “Beyond seeking to make computers ubiquitous, we should try to make them unobtrusive…. For all the coverage of the growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web, a far bigger change is coming as the number of things using the Net dwarf the number of people. The real promise of connecting computers is to free people, by embedding the means to solve problems in the things around us.”

Recently, Gershenfeld published (with JP Vasseur) “As Objects Go Online” in Foreign Affairs:

“Although the Internet of Things is now technologically possible, its adoption is limited by a new version of an old conflict. During the 1980s, the Internet competed with a network called BITNET, a centralized system that linked mainframe computers. Buying a mainframe was expensive, and so BITNET’s growth was limited; connecting personal computers to the Internet made more sense. The Internet won out, and by the early 1990s, BITNET had fallen out of use. Today, a similar battle is emerging between the Internet of Things and what could be called the Bitnet of Things. The key distinction is where information resides: in a smart device with its own IP address or in a dumb device wired to a proprietary controller with an Internet connection. Confusingly, the latter setup is itself frequently characterized as part of the Internet of Things. As with the Internet and BITNET, the difference between the two models is far from semantic. Extending IP to the ends of a network enables innovation at its edges; linking devices to the Internet indirectly erects barriers to their use…

The size and speed of the Internet have grown by nine orders of magnitude since the time it was invented. This expansion vastly exceeds what its developers anticipated, but that the Internet could get so far is a testament to their insight and vision. The uses the Internet has been put to that have driven this growth are even more surprising; they were not part of any original plan. But they are the result of an open architecture that left room for the unexpected. Likewise, today’s vision for the Internet of Things is sure to be eclipsed by the reality of how it is actually used. But the history of the Internet provides principles to guide this development in ways that are scalable, robust, secure, and encouraging of innovation.

The Internet’s defining attribute is its interoperability; information can cross geographic and technological boundaries. With the Internet of Things, it can now leap out of the desktop and data center and merge with the rest of the world. As the technology becomes more finely integrated into daily life, it will become, paradoxically, less visible. The future of the Internet is to literally disappear into the woodwork.”

 

Posted in Internet of Things | Leave a comment

Here Comes the Next Bubble: #IoT (Video)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2dvxSKEGU]

Bubblino is a Twitter-monitoring, bubble-blowing Arduino-bot.

He watches twitter for a chosen keyword and every time he finds a new mention then he blows bubbles.

Posted in Internet of Things | Leave a comment

The Web at 25: The Value of Open

The Internet started as a network for linking research centers. The World Wide Web started as a way to share information among researchers at CERN. Both have expanded to touch today a third of the world’s population because they have been based on open standards.

Creating a closed and proprietary system has been the business model of choice for many great inventors and some of the greatest inventions of the computer age. That’s where we were headed towards in the early 1990s: The establishment of global proprietary networks owned by a few computer and telecommunications companies, whether old (IBM, AT&T) or new (AOL). Tim Berners-Lee’s invention and CERN’s decision to offer it to the world for free in 1993 changed the course of this proprietary march, giving a new—and much expanded—life to the Internet (itself a response to proprietary systems that did not inter-communicate) and establishing a new, open platform, for a seemingly infinite number of applications and services.

As Bob Metcalfe told me in 2009: “Tim Berners-Lee invented the URL, HTTP, and HTML standards… three adequate standards that, when used together, ignited the explosive growth of the Web… What this has demonstrated is the efficacy of the layered architecture of the Internet. The Web demonstrates how powerful that is, both by being layered on top of things that were invented 17 years before, and by giving rise to amazing new functions in the following decades.”

Metcalfe also touched on the power and potential of an open platform: “Tim Berners-Lee tells this joke, which I hasten to retell because it’s so good. He was introduced at a conference as the inventor of the World Wide Web. As often happens when someone is introduced that way, there are at least three people in the audience who want to fight about that, because they invented it or a friend of theirs invented it. Someone said, ‘You didn’t. You can’t have invented it. There’s just not enough time in the day for you to have typed in all that information.’ That poor schlemiel completely missed the point that Tim didn’t create the World Wide Web. He created the mechanism by which many, many people could create the World Wide Web.”

“All that information” was what the Web gave us (and what was also on the mind of one of the Internet’s many parents, J.C.R. Licklider, who envisioned it as a giant library). But this information comes in the form of ones and zeros, it is digital information. In 2007, 94% of storage capacity in the world was digital, a complete reversal from 1986, when 99.2% of all storage capacity was analog. The Web was the glue and the catalyst that would speed up the spread of digitization to all analog devices and channels for the creation, communications, and consumption of information.  It has been breaking down, one by one, proprietary and closed systems with the force of its ones and zeros.

Metcalfe’s comments were first published in ON magazine which I created and published for my employer at the time, EMC Corporation. For a special issue (PDF) commemorating the 20th anniversary of the invention of the Web, we asked some 20 members of the Inforati how the Web has changed their and our lives and what it will look like in the future. Here’s a sample of their answers:

Guy Kawasaki: “With the Web, I’ve become a lot more digital… I have gone from three or four meetings a day to zero meetings per day… Truly the best will be when there is a 3-D hologram of Guy giving a speech. You can pass your hand through him. That’s ultimate.”

Chris Brogan: “We look at the Web as this set of tools that allow people to try any idea without a whole lot of expense… Anyone can start anything with very little money, and then it’s just a meritocracy in terms of winning the attention wars.”

Tim O’Reilly: “This next stage of the Web is being driven by devices other than computers. Our phones have six or seven sensors. The applications that are coming will take data from our devices and the data that is being built up in these big user-contributed databases and mash them together in new kinds of services.”

John Seely Brown: “When I ran Xerox PARC, I had access to one of the world’s best intellectual infrastructures: 250 researchers, probably another 50 craftspeople, and six reference librarians all in the same building. Then one day to go cold turkey—when I did my first retirement—was a complete shock. But with the Web, in a year or two, I had managed to hone a new kind of intellectual infrastructure that in many ways matched what I already had. That’s obviously the power of the Web, the power to connect and interact at a distance.”

Jimmy Wales: “One of the things I would like to see in the future is large-scale, collaborative video projects. Imagine what the expense would be with traditional methods if you wanted to do a documentary film where you go to 90 different countries… with the Web, a large community online could easily make that happen.”

Paul Saffo: “I love that story of when Tim Berners-Lee took his proposal to his boss, who scribbled on it, ‘Sounds exciting, though a little vague.’ But Tim was allowed to do it. I’m alarmed because at this moment in time, I don’t think there are any institutions our there where people are still allowed to think so big.”

Dany Levy (founder of DailyCandy): “With the Web, everything comes so easily. I wonder about the future and the human ability to research and to seek and to find, which is really an important skill. I wonder, will human beings lose their ability to navigate?”

Howard Rheingold: “The Web allows people to do things together that they weren’t allowed to do before. But… I think we are in danger of drowning in a sea of misinformation, disinformation, spam, porn, urban legends, and hoaxes.”

Paul Graham: “[With the Web] you don’t just have to use whatever information is local. You can ship information to anyone anywhere. The key is to have the right filter. This is often what startups make.”

How many startups and grown-up companies today are entirely based on an idea first flashed out in a modest proposal 25 years ago? And there is no end in sight for the expanding membership in this club, now also increasingly including the analogs of the world. All businesses, all governments, all non-profits, all activities are being eaten by ones and zeros. Tim Berners-Lee has unleashed an open, ever-expanding system for the digitization of everything.

We also interviewed Berners-Lee in 2009. He said that the Web has “changed in the last few years faster than it changed before, and it is crazy to for us to imagine this acceleration will suddenly stop.” He pointed out the ongoing tendency to lock what we do with computers in a proprietary jail: “…there are aspects of the online world that are still fairly ‘pre-Web.’ Social networking sites, for example, are still siloed; you can’t share your information from one site with a contact on another site.” But he remained both realistic and optimistic, the hallmarks of an entrepreneur: “The Web, after all, is just a tool…. What you see on it reflects humanity—or at least the 20 percent of humanity that currently has access to the Web… No one owns the World Wide Web, no one has a copyright for it, and no one collects royalties from it. It belongs to humanity, and when it comes to humanity, I’m tremendously optimistic.”

The Pew Research Center is marking the 25th anniversary of the Web in a series of reports. Berners-Lee says in a press release issued today by the World Wide Web Consortium: “I hope this anniversary will spark a global conversation about our need to defend principles that have made the Web successful, and to unlock the Web’s untapped potential. I believe we can build a Web that truly is for everyone: one that is accessible to all, from any device, and one that empowers all of us to achieve our dignity, rights and potential as humans.”

See also Berners-Lee post on Google’s official blog: “…today is a day to celebrate. But it’s also an occasion to think, discuss—and do. Key decisions on the governance and future of the Internet are looming, and it’s vital for all of us to speak up for the web’s future. How can we ensure that the other 60 percent around the world who are not connected get online fast? How can we make sure that the web supports all languages and cultures, not just the dominant ones? How do we build consensus around open standards to link the coming Internet of Things? Will we allow others to package and restrict our online experience, or will we protect the magic of the open web and the power it gives us to say, discover, and create anything? How can we build systems of checks and balances to hold the groups that can spy on the net accountable to the public? These are some of my questions—what are yours?”

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

The Web at 25: Tim Berners-Lee on the Web of Data

In 2009, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Web, Jason Rubin and I talked to Tim Berners-Lee about his invention and its future, the Semantic Web, which he described as “the Web of data.”

Twenty years on, the World Wide Web has proven itself both ubiquitous and indispensible. Did you anticipate it would reach this status, and in this time frame?

Tim Berners-Lee: I think while it’s very tempting for us to look at the Web and say, “Well, here it is, and this is what it is,” it has, of course, been constantly growing and changing—and it will continue to do so. So to think of this as a static “This is how the Web is” sort of thing is, I think, unwise. In fact, it’s changed in the last few years faster than it changed before, and it’s crazy for us to imagine this acceleration will suddenly stop. So yes, the 20-year point goes by in a flash, but we should realize that, and we are constantly changing it, and it’s very important that we do so.

I believe that 20 years from now, people will look back at where we are today as being a time when the Web of documents was fairly well established, such that if someone wanted to find a document, there’s a pretty good chance it could be found on the Web. The Web of data, though, which we call the Semantic Web, would be seen as just starting to take off. We have the standards but still just a small community of true believers who recognize the value of putting data on the Web for people to share and mash up and use at will. And there are other aspects of the online world that are still fairly “pre-Web.” Social networking sites, for example, are still siloed; you can’t share your information from one site with a contact on another site. Hopefully, in a few years’ time, we’ll see that quite large category of social information truly Web-ized, rather than being held in individual lockdown applications.

You mentioned a “small community” of people who see the value of the Semantic Web. Is that a repeat occurrence of the struggle 20 years ago to get people to understand the scope and potential impact of the World Wide Web?

It’s remarkably similar. It’s very funny. You’d think that once people had seen the effect of Web-izing documents to produce the World Wide Web, doing likewise with their data would seem the next logical step. But for one thing, the Web was a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift is when you don’t have in your vocabulary the concepts and the ideas with which to understand the new world. Today, the idea that a web link could connect to a document that originates anywhere on the planet is completely second nature, but back then it took a very strong imagination for somebody to understand it.

Now, with data, almost all the data you come across is locked in a database. The idea that you could access and combine data anywhere in the world and immediately make it part of your spreadsheet is another paradigm shift. It’s difficult to get people to buy into it. But in the same way as before, those who do get it become tremendously fired up. Once somebody has realized what it would be like to have linked data across the world, then they become very enthusiastic, and so we now have this corps of people in many countries all working together to make it happen.

Do you see the Semantic Web as enabling greater collaboration between and among parties, as opposed to the point-to-point or point-to-many communication that seems more prevalent in the current Web?

The original web browser was a browser editor and it was supposed to be a collaborative tool, but it only ran on the NeXT workstation on which it was developed. However, the idea that the Web should be a collaborative place has always been a very important goal for me. I think harnessing the creative energy of people is really important. When you get people who are trying to solve big problems like cure AIDS, fight cancer, and understand Alzheimer’s disease, there are a huge number of people involved, all of them with half-formed ideas in their minds. How do we get them communicating so that the half of an idea in one person’s head will connect with half of an idea in somebody else’s head, and they’ll come up with the solution?

That’s been a goal for the Web of documents, and it’s certainly a goal for the Web of data, where different pieces of data can be used for all kinds of different things. For example, a genomist may suspect that a particular protein is connected to a certain syndrome in a cell line, search for and find data relating to each area, and then suddenly put together the different strains of data and discover something new. And this is something he can do with the owners of the respective pieces of data, who might never have found each other or known that their data was connected. So the Web of data will absolutely lead to greater collaboration.

Is your vision of the Semantic Web one in which data is freely available, or are there access rights attached to it?

A lot of information is already public, so one of the simple things to do in building the new Web of data is to start with that information. And recently, I’ve been working with both the U.K. government and the U.S. government in trying not only to get more information on the Web, but also to make it linked data. But it’s also very important that systems are aware of the social aspects of data. And it’s not just access control, because an authorized user can still use the right data for the wrong purpose. So we need to focus on what are the purposes for accessing different kinds of data, and for that we’ve been looking at accountable systems.

Accountable systems are aware of the appropriate use of data, and they allow you to make sure that certain kinds of information that you are comfortable sharing with people in a social context, for example, are not able to be accessed and considered by people looking to hire you. For example, I have a GPS trail that I took on vacation. Certainly, I want to give it to my friends and my family, but I don’t necessarily wish to license people I don’t know who are curious about me and my work and let them see where I’ve been. Companies may want to do the same thing. They might say, “We’re going to give you access to certain product information because you’re part of our supply chain and you can use it to fine-tune your manufacturing schedule to meet our demand. However, we do not license you to use it to give to our competition to modify their pricing.”

You need to be able to ask the system to show you just the data that you can use for a given task, because how you wish to use it will be the difference in whether you can use it. So we need systems for recording what the appropriate use of data is, and we need systems for helping people use data in an appropriate way so they can meet an ethical standard.

Ultimately, what is one of the most significant things the Semantic Web will enable?

One thing I think we’ll be able to do is to write intelligent programs that run across the Web of data looking for patterns when something went wrong—like when a company failed, or when a product turned out to be dangerous, or when an ecological catastrophe happened. We can then identify patterns in a broad range of data types that resulted in something serious happening, and that will allow us to identify when these patterns recur, and we’ll be better able to prepare for or prevent the situation.

I think when we have a lot of data available on the Web about the world, including social data, ecological data, meteorological data, and financial data, we’ll be able to make much better models. It’s been quite evident over the last year, for example, that we have a really bad grasp of the financial system. Part of the reason for that might be that we have insufficient data from which to draw conclusions, or that the experts are too selective in which data they use. The more data we have, the more accurate our models will be.

After 20 years, what about the Web—either its current or future capabilities—excites you the most?

One of the things that gets me the most excited are the mash-ups, where there’s one market of people providing data and there’s a second layer of people mashing up the data, picking from a rich variety of data sources to create a useful new application or service. A classic example of a mash-up is when I find a seminar I want to go to, and the web page has information about the sponsor, the presenter, the topic, and the logistics. I have to write all that down on the back of an envelope and then go and put it in my address book; I have to put it in my calendar; I have to enter the address in my GPS—basically, I have to copy this information into every device I use to manage my life, which is inefficient and time-consuming. This is because there is no common format for this data to become integrated into my devices.

Now, the vision of Semantic Web is that the seminar’s web page has information pointed at data about the event. So I just tell my computer I’m going to be attending that seminar and then, automatically, there is a calendar that shows things that I’m attending. And automatically, an address book I define as having in it the people who have given seminars that I’ve attended within the last six months appears, with a link to the presenter’s public profile. And automatically, my PDA starts pointing towards somewhere I need to be at an appropriate time to get me there. All I need to do is say, “I’m going to that seminar,” and then the rest should follow.

The Web is such a mélange of useful, noble content and stuff that runs the gamut from the mundane to the grotesque. Do you think humanity is using this incredible invention of yours appropriately?

Yes. The Web, after all, is just a tool. It’s a powerful one, and it reconfigures what we can do, but it’s just a tool, a piece of white paper, if you will. So what you see on it reflects humanity—or at least the 20 percent of humanity that currently has access to the Web.

As a standards body, the W3C is not interested in policing the Web or in censoring content, nor should we be. No one owns the World Wide Web, no one has a copyright for it, and no one collects royalties from it. It belongs to humanity, and when it comes to humanity, I’m tremendously optimistic. After 20 years, I’m still very excited and extremely hopeful.

[First published in ON magazine]

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment